FBFI Resolution 09-02

Actually, alcohol doesn’t destroy lives; choices do. And the same is true with guns.

I don’t think your comparison holds and bad analogies don’t make good arguments.

Guns don’t alter mental states. They don’t cause you to lose your inhibitions or do crazy things. Most people who do something with their guns don’t wake up the next morning and wonder what they did last night. Most of the times that guns are involved in immorality is it because someone is pointing it at someone else. It’s not because they lingered a little too long over the barrel.

Alcohol is completely different. It does alter a mental state. It does cause you to lose your inhibitions. And on and on.

And I don’t think drinking is necessarily wrong.

I think Monte’s appeal to Prov 20:1 doesn’t actually deal with Prov 20:1. That proverb speaks to those who are deceived by it. (The word probably “led astray” and can be used in other ways such as in Prov 5:19 of a man’s satisfaction with his wife which could hardly be described as “deceived,” though the next verse uses the same word, probably in an ironic way. In Isa 28:7, it’s only other use with wine I think, it clearly means intoxicated. So in Prov 20:1, its meaning with wine is probably “intoxicated,” but I will go with the KJV on this out of deference to Monte). A great many people who drink alcohol as a beverage are not deceived by it; they are not intoxicated by it.

Monte’s case about John 2 is another classic case of bad argumentation: “It can’t be real wine because drinking is prohibited.” That’s a bad argument. It assumes that your conclusion that drinking is completely forbidden is right. And then you have to write off all evidence to the contrary as really meaning something else. I doubt many wedding parties served grape juice in the first century. It may have been diluted, but it was impressive to the people at hand. Historically total abstinence as not been the position of the church (which means little to many, particularly those who hold a particular view of the Scriptures themselves). But it is at least something to consider.

Now, let me remind you as I said recently on my blog, I think drinking alcohol as a beverage is silly. I think it is unwise. I think it is unnecessary. I say that publicly and privately. I tell people “I don’t think you should drink and here’s why.” I have told people, ‘You cannot drink and remain a member of this congregation.” But the Bible does not give a clear categorical condemnation of it, and therefore we must tread lightly. Harding’s title “The Wrath of Grapes” is apt, and should be heeded.

So I am not making a case for drinking. I don’t want to and don’t need to. I don’t think you should drink. My point is about bad arguments.

Fundamentalists must guard against an anachronistic set of rules that fails to see the true intent of Scripture and creates a caricature of New Testament Christianity. At the same time, Fundamentalists must be honest with themselves about the presence of worldliness within our own churches and individual lives and not forsake true holiness under the guise of a false Christian liberty.

I was discussing rearing our kids in church with someone the other day, having learned through brutal experience that it is incredibly naive to treat the church as if it is a safe haven from sinful behavior and worldly influences. I agree with the above quote, because I think achieving this balance (holiness and liberty) is one of the most difficult things to accomplish in one’s own life and thus in the church. We are so often guilty of deceiving ourselves- picking and choosing what principles we want to apply to our lives (and the lives of others)… that IMO is what creates the caricature of NT Christianity.

Actually, alcohol doesn’t destroy lives; choices do. And the same is true with guns.

I understand what you are saying here, Bro. Fields, but we can’t ignore the inherent potential in some practices, as well as their social acceptability. Alcohol abuse is shrugged off and even laughed at, while I can’t think of an instance where ‘gun abuse’ was considered amusing. More and more, the other behaviors listed are funny eccentricities instead of abominations in the sight of God. But you can’t advise people not to watch their favorite source of entertainment, because then you’ve done gone and stepped in it.

[Aaron Blumer] “The Wrath of Grapes.” … I don’t recall specifically… seemed more than two wines are involved.

I think I forgot to mention. They all contained alcohol.

[KenFields]

[Aaron Blumer] To me, the best case that can be made is probably the one in Jaegeli’s book (not sure, haven’t read it)… i.e., (1) we simply do not need to have alcohol in our beverages today. It’s easily avoided and there is nothing to gain from drinking it yet risk in drinking it. (2) It’s a fabulous opportunity to “not conform” and take the high ground in reference to something that has destroyed so, so many lives.

I’ve heard the same arguments offered for why we should not own guns. Don’t need ‘em and they’ve destroyed so many lives.

Actually, alcohol doesn’t destroy lives; choices do. And the same is true with guns.

BTW, I am not advocating alcohol use or gun control … just pointing out some inconsistencies in Jaegeli’s arguments. I’ve been told it’s my spiritual gift! :D

Started reading comments - ok yeah, obviously guns are not the same as alcohol… BUT - Ken is combating Blumer’s “best case” arguments - apparently Jaegeli defines alcohol as something unneeded and dangerous. Strictly speaking, if you want to attach Ken’s analogy - you have to attack it based on Aaron’s definitions without importing other features of alcohol or guns into the discussion. It’s not an open ended analogy.

[ssutter]

[KenFields]

[Aaron Blumer] To me, the best case that can be made is probably the one in Jaegeli’s book (not sure, haven’t read it)… i.e., (1) we simply do not need to have alcohol in our beverages today. It’s easily avoided and there is nothing to gain from drinking it yet risk in drinking it. (2) It’s a fabulous opportunity to “not conform” and take the high ground in reference to something that has destroyed so, so many lives.

I’ve heard the same arguments offered for why we should not own guns. Don’t need ‘em and they’ve destroyed so many lives.

Actually, alcohol doesn’t destroy lives; choices do. And the same is true with guns.

BTW, I am not advocating alcohol use or gun control … just pointing out some inconsistencies in Jaegeli’s arguments. I’ve been told it’s my spiritual gift! :D

Started reading comments - ok yeah, obviously guns are not the same as alcohol… BUT - Ken is combating Blumer’s “best case” arguments - apparently Jaegeli defines alcohol as something unneeded and dangerous. Strictly speaking, if you want to attach Ken’s analogy - you have to attack it based on Aaron’s definitions without importing other features of alcohol or guns into the discussion. It’s not an open ended analogy.

…but having lived for nearly 20 years in rural WV, the idea of guns as unnecessary is laughable. Unless you don’t mind dogs killing your chickens and rabbits, black bears knocking on your back door, or thugs stealing anything that ain’t nailed together. I certainly couldn’t deal with any of the above situations by pouring a bottle of JD all over it.

Every analogy falls apart at some point, but this one only takes a sneeze and kaflooey- there it goes.

In the first century, people drank alcoholic beverages. Many people abused them. Timothy may serve as an example of some Christians who did, to a very large extent at least, abstain from drinking. Presumably it was to maintain face. I find it most telling, though, that our Lord did not choose to model this course for his people. Not only did he create wine at Cana, he certainly drank often enough that bigoted individuals could wrongly accuse him as a drunkard. Matthew 11:18-19 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”

I believe the Lord’s Supper provides the context for a Christian understanding of alcohol. Jews drank alcoholic beverages as part of their religious festivals, with no indication that it was a shame, a disgrace, or a little “shaky.” One can make all sorts of baseless assumptions about the nature of the “wine,” but we all know what’s strong about “strong drink.” Deuteronomy 14:24-26 24 And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the LORD your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the LORD your God chooses, to set his name there, 25 then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the LORD your God chooses 26 and spend the money for whatever you desire- oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the LORD your God and rejoice, you and your household.

When the Lord’s Supper was instituted, Jesus certainly used real wine, keeping the Jewish tradition. The imagery of wine in connection with God’s saving work has OT roots as well. (Here again, grape juice hardly makes sense.) Zechariah 10:6-7 “I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph. I will bring them back because I have compassion on them, and they shall be as though I had not rejected them, for I am the LORD their God and I will answer them. 7 Then Ephraim shall become like a mighty warrior, and their hearts shall be glad as with wine. Their children shall see it and be glad; their hearts shall rejoice in the LORD.

What a beautiful way to teach! In the Lord’s Supper, we learn that alcohol is a good gift from God. It is for children, it is for adults, it is for men, it is for women. It makes the heart glad. In the church, Christians can learn to use alcohol without abusing alcohol, a line that Corinth seemed not to always get just right. Yet abstinence is not Paul’s solution 1 Corinthians 11:20-21 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.

Obviously, the 19th century introduction of grape juice in the place of wine was the result of an unbiblical attitude toward alcohol. Really, it was an affront to the history and practice of the church. Alcohol is in some ways like sex; the perversions of it have often fostered a “sex is dirty” attitude in the church that is the opposite of rejoicing in God’s gift to his people, within his boundaries. The Lord’s Supper instructs us on how to receive wine as it is - God’s gift.

Note: Obviously, the Lord’s Supper is not about alcohol; it is about Christ’s work on behalf of his church. Nevertheless, I believe that reflecting on it brings insight into the Christian’s relationship with alcohol.

You beat me to the punch, Charlie. I was thinking that a better comparison than guns is sex. Proverbs warns strongly against the strange woman but we don’t conclude that the admonition is against sex, just illicit sex. That said, we should not insist that everyone get married and have sex, we should just say that the matter is one of personal liberty. Romans 14 is prominent in this matter. If you drink, you should not flaunt it, if you don’t you should stop your opinion with yourself and not judge your Master’s other servants until and unless drunkenness enters the picture. Then we should condemn it soundly.

[Susan R] Every analogy falls apart at some point, but this one only takes a sneeze and kaflooey- there it goes.

The analogy was not meant to be an end-all to the discussion … just a stimulant! I guess it worked!

In reality, it was a tongue-in-cheek point about non-biblical arguments regarding alcohol consumption and other “worldly” activities.

Do we have a tongue-in-cheek smiley? :~

[Dennis Clemons] If you drink, you should not flaunt it, if you don’t you should stop your opinion with yourself and not judge your Master’s other servants until and unless drunkenness enters the picture. Then we should condemn it soundly.

The better question (and one that I’ve heard Dr. Bauder address) is this: how does a consumer of alcohol know when he has reached the point of drunkenness?

And biblically speaking, when does the one drinking become drunk? When he can’t walk straight … when his blood alcohol content reaches the state’s .08 level? When he feels ‘the buzz’?

For me, this is the best non-biblical argument for abstinence (from alcohol): the consumer is often unaware of the point of inebriation.

Charlie,

Well said;. My wife and I have been attending and will probably join a PCA church, and while they offer grape joice, wine is the default drink in communion. I have drunk the wine every time I’ve taken communion at the church, and it has caused me to think about the history of the church’s practice, and the massive deviation that using grape juice entails (I mean, wine in communion was is a truly catholic practice: in all times and all places). I think you’re right, too, that had the church kept wine in the communion, people would have learned a better and more biblical way to understand the place of alchohol in life; just as if we had never adopted cultural and sinfully prudish assumptions about sexuality, we would never have had to deal with some much nonsense in attitudes towards sexuality in the church, so too if we had kept a biblical view of alcohol, afforded to us in the Scripture, the history of israel, and the history of the church, much of the nonsense on alcohol (a huge waste of time, when one reflects on how much time people spend on backing up patently unbiblical and wrong positions) would never have occurred.

It’s an ironic instance of the culture dictating its norms to the church - not for the first time, of course. The church in America particularly really messed up on the issues concerning the body and pleasure generally, and those mistakes, which can be traced back to more substantive theological moves in the Western tradition, have had significantly deleterious effects on the church’s practical witness and its approach to issues concerning the body, pleasure, etc.

[Susan R]

[ssutter]

[KenFields]

[Aaron Blumer] To me, the best case that can be made is probably the one in Jaegeli’s book (not sure, haven’t read it)… i.e., (1) we simply do not need to have alcohol in our beverages today. It’s easily avoided and there is nothing to gain from drinking it yet risk in drinking it. (2) It’s a fabulous opportunity to “not conform” and take the high ground in reference to something that has destroyed so, so many lives.

I’ve heard the same arguments offered for why we should not own guns. Don’t need ‘em and they’ve destroyed so many lives.

Actually, alcohol doesn’t destroy lives; choices do. And the same is true with guns.

BTW, I am not advocating alcohol use or gun control … just pointing out some inconsistencies in Jaegeli’s arguments. I’ve been told it’s my spiritual gift! :D

Started reading comments - ok yeah, obviously guns are not the same as alcohol… BUT - Ken is combating Blumer’s “best case” arguments - apparently Jaegeli defines alcohol as something unneeded and dangerous. Strictly speaking, if you want to attach Ken’s analogy - you have to attack it based on Aaron’s definitions without importing other features of alcohol or guns into the discussion. It’s not an open ended analogy.

…but having lived for nearly 20 years in rural WV, the idea of guns as unnecessary is laughable. Unless you don’t mind dogs killing your chickens and rabbits, black bears knocking on your back door, or thugs stealing anything that ain’t nailed together. I certainly couldn’t deal with any of the above situations by pouring a bottle of JD all over it.

Every analogy falls apart at some point, but this one only takes a sneeze and kaflooey- there it goes.

Actually, Susan, what you said has nothing to do with the analogy, nor does Ken’s analogy fall apart; it’s works perfectly. Analogies do not fall apart - they get over-extended or they are bad and hence don’t work..The point of analogy is to compare things with respect to some specific shared properties, in order to same something about one on the basis of its similarity (or disimilarity) to the other.

Whether or not those who argue that guns are unnecessary are right or wrong is completely irrelevant: Ken’s point was that the argument about alcohol (that it’s unnecessary and that it’s damages lives) is an argument he’s seem before in a context where it was clearly a bad argument. Now, he seeing the same argument again, and, guess what? It’s still a bad argument! And this is so for exactly the same (or similar) reasons that it was a bad argument against guns. One of the mains reasons the argument is bad is because it places responsibility and power in the thing (guns, alcohol, etc.), which is a way of avoiding the fact that things are only not responsible, their users are. That something can be seriuosly misused is no argument against it, which is why such arguments are nor usually framed in terms of misuse because then it’s much clearer how bad the argument is; so the argumetns are framed in terms of the thing having a kind of power and responsibility, which is, again, a misleading (but often effective) way of framing the issue.

One of the mains reasons the argument is bad is because it places responsibility and power in the thing (guns, alcohol, etc.), which is a way of avoiding the fact that things are only not responsible, their users are.

Responsibility, yes. Power is a different issue. Alcohol has a power over an individual that a gun does not. Shooting a gun all day long will not give the gun power over the person. Shooting a gun every day for years will not give the gun power over a person. Alcohol will. So I think it is a bad argument to try to compare guns and alcohol. They are two very different types of things.

And I don’t think communion helps your point, and I have no idea what you mean “cultural and sinfully prudish assumptions about sexuality” but it strikes me as an odd statement, particularly in this context.

I read an article a few weeks ago that I thought was the best article against drinking I had ever read. I failed to bookmark it for later reference though. I noticed in a previous post that Larry wrote about an article he had posted on his blog, so I went to my Google Reader to see if his article was the article I had remembered and sure enough it was.

http://stuffoutloud.blogspot.com/2009/06/in-diner.html Here It is.

p.s. Larry is not shameless like me in plugging his blog in his signature!

Is there any independent evidence from the ancient world for the “two wines” theory? It strikes me as wishful thinking.

First, the Hebrew scriptures portray wine in a very negative way. The warnings against wine are extremely strong and the effects of wine are seen as devastating. Abstinence is connected with special dedication and spiritual responsibility.

Prov 20:1

20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

NKJV

Prov 20:1

20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

NKJV

Prov 20:1

20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

NKJV

Prov 23:29-24:1

29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?

30 Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine.

31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;

32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.

33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.

34 Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying:

35 “They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?”

NKJV

Prov 20:1

20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

NKJV

Prov 23:29-24:1

29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?

30 Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine.

31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;

32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.

33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.

34 Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying:

35 “They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?”

NKJV

Prov 31:4-5

4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Nor for princes intoxicating drink;

5 Lest they drink and forget the law, And pervert the justice of all the afflicted.

NKJV

Prov 20:1

20:1 Wine Is a Mocker Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

NKJV

Prov 23:29-24:1

29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?

30 Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine.

31 Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;

32 At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper.

33 Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things.

34 Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying:

35 “They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?”

NKJV

Prov 31:4-5

4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine, Nor for princes intoxicating drink;

5 Lest they drink and forget the law, And pervert the justice of all the afflicted.

NKJV

Hab 2:15-16

15 “Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, Pressing him to your bottle, Even to make him drunk, That you may look on his nakedness!

16 You are filled with shame instead of glory. You also — drink! And be exposed as uncircumcised! The cup of the LORD’s right hand will be turned against you, And utter shame will be on your glory.

NKJV

Special examples are given connecting abstanance from wine with special dedication to God.

Priests were not to drink wine when ministering in the temple (Lev. 10:9).

Daniel and his friends refused wine (Dan. 1).

Those under a Nazerite vow abstained from wine and strong drink (Num. 6:1-4)

Second, the strong warnings and restrictions in the Hebrew scriptures provide the basis for the prohibitions in the Christian scriptures.

John the Baptist, the Hebrew transition prophet, abstained from Wine and strong drink (Matt 11:18).

Church Elders were to not be given to wine (1Tim. 3:3).

Deacons were not to be given to wine (1Tim.3:8

The effects of wine are contrasted to the effects of being filled with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18).

In light of the nature and severity of the warnings and examples of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, we must consider abstinence from wine and strong drink as integral with any and all calls to spiritual commitment in the Christian church (Rom. 12:1-2).

From a life experience standpoint, as one coming from a non Christian home and lifestyle, having spent 4 years active duty in the Navy where I was converted to Christ, I cannot see the wisdom of any Christian seeking to find a place or allowance for alcoholic beverages in a Christians life. Past history of the churches, and present cultural allowances for such in Europe and other places, have been a factor in weaker testimonies and churches.

In American culture today, making allowance for alcoholic beverages can have many detrimental results. I have heard several teenagers who have made excuse for their drug use by stating that adults have a drug of their choice called alcohol. Use alcohol and you weaken the example and basis for your own children. We are asked to present our bodies as a living sacrifice at Rom. 12: 1-2. If the effects of alcohol on the body are contrasted to Spirit control at Eph. 5:18, how can we sincerely do that while seeking to ignore strong warnings of scripture regarding a thing and seeking to find the possible loopholes for that thing.